Your search
Results 3 resources
-
With incredible speed Large Language Models (LLMs) are reshaping many aspects of society. This has been met with unease by the public, and public discourse is rife with questions about whether LLMs are or might be conscious. Because there is widespread disagreement about consciousness among scientists, any concrete answers that could be offered the public would be contentious. This paper offers the next best thing: charting the possibility of consciousness in LLMs. So, while it is too early to judge concerning the possibility of LLM consciousness, our charting of the possibility space for this may serve as a temporary guide for theorizing about it.
-
It has been suggested we may see conscious AI systems within the next few decades. Somewhat lost in these expectations is the fact that we still do not understand the nature of consciousness in humans, and we currently have as little empirical handle on how to measure the presence or absence of subjective experience in humans as we do in AI systems. In the history of consciousness research, no behaviour or cognitive function has ever been identified as a necessary condition for consciousness. For this reason, no behavioural marker exists for scientists to identify the presence or absence of consciousness ‘from the outside’. This results in a circularity in our measurements of consciousness. The problem is that we need to make an ultimately unwarranted assumption about who or what is conscious in order to create experimental contrasts and conduct studies that will ground our decisions about who or what is conscious. Call this the Contrast Problem. Here we explicate the contrast problem, highlight some upshots of it, and consider a way forward.
-
It is well known that in interdisciplinary consciousness studies there are various competing hypotheses about the neural correlate(s) of consciousness (NCCs). Much contemporary work is dedicated to determining which of these hypotheses is right (or the weaker claim is to be preferred). The prevalent working assumption is that one of the competing hypotheses is correct, and the remaining hypotheses misdescribe the phenomenon in some critical manner and their associated purported empirical evidence will eventually be explained away. In contrast to this, we propose that each hypothesis—simultaneously with its competitors—may be right and its associated evidence be genuine evidence of NCCs. To account for this, we develop the multiple generator hypothesis (MGH) based on a distinction between principles and generators. The former denotes ways consciousness can be brought about and the latter how these are implemented in physical systems. We explicate and delineate the hypothesis and give examples of aspects of consciousness studies where the MGH is applicable and relevant. Finally, to show that it is promising we show the MGH has implications which give rise to novel questions or aspects to consider for the field of consciousness studies.